ArticleScientific reports2024
The clinical evaluation of a widefield lens to expand the field of view in optical coherence tomography (OCT-A).
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volumetric montaging of optical coherence tomography in human retinas.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Ultrawide-Field Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography-Guided Navigated Laser Therapy of Non-Perfused Areas in Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of incorporating a widefield lens (WFL) in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) in patients with retinal vascular diseases in comparison to standard single-shot OCT-A scans. Sixty patients with retinal vascular diseases including diabetic retinopathy (DR) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) were recruited. OCT-A imaging (PlexElite 9000) with and without WFL was performed in randomized order. The assessment included patient comfort, time, field of view (FoV), image quality and pathology detection. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests and Bonferroni correction for multiple tests, with inter-grader agreement using the kappa coefficient. Using a WFL did not lead to statistically significant differences in DR and RVO group test times. Patient comfort remained high, with similar responses for WFL and non-WFL measurements. The WFL notably expanded the scan field (1.6× FoV increase), enhancing peripheral retinal visibility. However, image quality varied due to pathology and eye dominance, affecting the detection of peripheral issues in RVO and DR cases. The use of a WFL widens the scan field, aiding vascular retinal disease imaging with minor effects on comfort, time, and image quality. Further enhancements are needed for broader view angles, enabling improved quantification of non-perfused areas and more reliable peripheral proliferation detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.